BullBearMS:A war crime is a serious violation of the laws applicable in armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include "murder

Biological Ali:PunGent: Biological Ali: PunGent: Not really. Years after the fact, and the prosecution couldn't name ONE person who was even threatened, let alone actually harmed?

We're talking "abducted by aliens" levels of probability at this point.

When somebody does something reckless and it turns out with the benefit of hindsight that nobody was harmed as a result on that particular occasion, that person doesn't just a pass.

Actually, depending on the particular offense and jurisdiction, sometimes they DO get a pass. (Why, it's almost like I'm a lawyer or something.)

Again, no problem with the final sentencing here...I'm responding to those who think he was UNDER charged, mostly.

Sure, but we're not even talking about charging and sentencing. You were, apparently, taking issue with somebody who stated that:

Yeah, as much as I love a good whistle blower, who knows it's conceivable that people's lives could have been put in danger. At BEST it's reckless and irresponsible.

That person was absolutely correct. Sensible people simply don't judge recklessness and irresponsibility by looking at outcomes with the benefit of hindsight - if somebody indiscriminately reveals information related to informants, that action doesn't magically become not reckless or irresponsible if none of those informants are harmed within some arbitrary time frame.

No, but legally it tends to become LESS reckless or irresponsible.

It's like the difference between driving drunk but not getting into an accident, and driving drunk and killing a schoolbus full of orphans.

Drunk A is getting a lesser penalty, most places...and I think that's OK.

sudo give me more cowbell:Joe Blowme: cman: vpb: skinnycatullus: That's actually something of a win for him. His attorneys were hoping for 25 yrs while the prosecution asked for 60.

It seems a bit much. His defense actually had a point when they pointed out that he shouldn't have had a security clearance because the Army knew he had mental problems.

What mental issues?

I haven't kept up on the case that much but the only mental issues I have heard was someone claiming his transgenderism was a mental illness.

isn't it? Or is it a physical mutation? Or brain chemical imbalance?

Nope. It isn't.It's an orientation as legitimate as homosexuality.

In fact, it's demonstrable. Turns out the brains of transgendered persons are physically the same as the gender they are asserting. Ever wonder what it's like to have your brain put into a body of a different gender? Ask a transgendered person. They'll tell you.

Carth:dervish16108: Carth: IlGreven: 35 years for a man who caused fewer deaths than George Zimmerman.

The difference being there is proof Manning broke the law. There is no proof Zimmerman did.

There is proof General James Clapper broke the law when he was under oath and lied to US Congress about surveillance. Where's his indictment? Oh wait, he got promoted to chair the NSA oversight committee!

How much money should be spent prosecuting someone who would instantly be pardoned if found guilty?

Let Obama pardon him, then. That's on Obama's conscience. We already spend tons more on an unlawful surveillance program than we'd spend prosecuting anyone for a crime. Why do we always have to acquiesce to injustice?

dervish16108:Let Obama pardon him, then. That's on Obama's conscience. We already spend tons more on an unlawful surveillance program than we'd spend prosecuting anyone for a crime. Why do we always have to acquiesce to injustice?

Seems a better use for the money would be bringing the 'unlawful surveillance' programs before the SCOTUS. However if they rule in favor of them I don't think people will stop complaining about them just because they are ruled legal.

Carth:dervish16108: Let Obama pardon him, then. That's on Obama's conscience. We already spend tons more on an unlawful surveillance program than we'd spend prosecuting anyone for a crime. Why do we always have to acquiesce to injustice?

Seems a better use for the money would be bringing the 'unlawful surveillance' programs before the SCOTUS. However if they rule in favor of them I don't think people will stop complaining about them just because they are ruled legal.

The costs of bringing charges against Clapper AND bringing the unlawful surveillance programs before the SCOTUS are insignificant compared to the prices of these programs and our war ventures that at least partially justify these programs. If they are ruled legal, then the SCOTUS will demonstrate itself to be a kangaroo court. If the people don't stop complaining about these programs and they are declared and/or reaffirmed to be legal, then it is crystal clear that we live under tyranny.